Oral Answers to Questions

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are increasing the protection that we are providing. We are giving people more and earlier help with their mortgage costs, and if other parties in the House are happy to co-operate, we shall want to make the changes in January. That would mean shortening the consultation procedure by a certain amount, but if people consider such action right at a time of financial turbulence, we propose to take it.
	We want to give people more help in redundancy by providing better training for them. That is why we announced another £100 million to help people to return to work. We will not repeat the mistake of the 1980s by abandoning people, fiddling the figures and leaving them on benefits and without support.

Kitty Ussher: As I have already said, we have measures in place to ensure that we are able to cope with any increased demand. I might hint that the hon. Gentleman's experience, as he relates it, does not fit with the experiences that my constituents report to me. He has talked of times of crisis: at the moment, urgent inquiries for living expenses, when people face particular difficulties and whether or not they have recently lost their job, are processed on average in 1.7 days. I would be interested to know how he thinks that we could improve on that.

Tony McNulty: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the jobseeker's allowance count rose last month to 939,900. There are 608,000 vacancies in the economy and 80 per cent. of claimants leave jobseeker's allowance within 6 months.
	Although we do not predict future levels of employment, we have been planning, quite properly, for the impact of higher levels of jobseeker's allowance claims in the coming months.

Tony McNulty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It might be that he was showing showed guarded and rather contorted support for all young people staying on in full-time education until they were 18—I would welcome that. Jobcentre Plus, in Wales and elsewhere, stands ready to help all people, throughout all age cohorts in the labour market, to get into the job market at the earliest opportunity. That includes the very youngest. However, it must be right that the most appropriate way to do so is to get them the skills and training that they need through to and beyond the age of 18.
	Topical Questions

James Purnell: In April of this year we introduced the local housing allowance, a more straightforward and transparent way of calculating entitlement to housing benefit in the private rental sector. However, an unintended consequence of the changes meant that in a limited number of cases the taxpayer paid out significant sums of money to private landlords in order to house people in the sorts of property that they could not afford if they were in work. That was clearly unacceptable and I ordered an urgent inquiry into the local housing allowance rates for properties with more than five bedrooms.
	Today, I can announce that LHA rates will be capped at the five-bedroom rate for all new customers. We will lay regulations as soon as possible, to come into effect no later than next April. In the interim, DWP and the Rent Service will monitor such applications carefully and advise on a case-by-case basis. Those currently claiming LHA above the capped rate for a property with more than five bedrooms will have their case reviewed on the first anniversary of their claim. This announcement fits with the wider DWP and Treasury review of housing benefit, which is currently under way. A key outcome of the review will be to ensure fairness for the taxpayer and to ensure that housing benefit provides the right incentives to work.

Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State will be aware that earlier this year, Dame Carol Black published a report entitled "Working for a healthier tomorrow", which highlighted the fact that sickness accounts for a cost to our economy of up to £1 billion. However, in these economically turbulent times the Government have so far failed to acknowledge the report or to give a proper response. Will the Secretary of State undertake to do so with immediate effect?

David Taylor: From this autumn, lone parents whose children are of secondary school age will be moved from income support to jobseeker's allowance. That change will affect existing claimants next April. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House and my constituent, Mr. Bennett, who has calculated that that change, because of changed links to housing costs, will mean that he will be at least £50 a month worse off? Is that an unforeseen consequence or are his figures incorrect?

Rosie Winterton: As I said, as people move towards the age of 75, their funds will be moved into more secure funding streams anyway. That is why the proposal to move further will not solve the problems of the majority of pensioners. It is a short-term measure, aimed at a few people who, as I said, tend to have been able to delay taking an annuity until 75. Other options are still open to people at that age, such as alternatively secured pensions.

Kitty Ussher: Both our Department and colleagues in the Treasury, working with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and other lending bodies, have made it entirely clear that in these times, we expect lenders to use repossession as an absolute last resort. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of recent statements to that effect, following the emergency measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took to inject more capital into the banks. Suffice it to say that it is very important, at this time, that all families and others realise the punitive interest rates that some people knocking on their doors can offer. I urge them to seek affordable credit, if it is indeed credit that they require.

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels, which I attended with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary on 15 and 16 October, the main business of which was to consider European action to stabilise financial markets and how we can work together to reform our international financial systems. The Council also welcomed the co-ordinated interest rate cut by central banks around the world.
	At the heart of our considerations was our shared understanding that the massive reduction in global financial activity and the fracturing of the global financial system has been the result of irresponsible and often undisclosed lending that started in American sub-prime markets. And while national action is necessary, the root problem can be dealt with only by changes in our financial systems, to recapitalise banks and to reform supervision around the principle of rewarding hard work, enterprise and responsible risk-taking, but not irresponsibility and excess.
	Market estimates suggest that in recent years some $2 trillion of US-originated loans, many of them toxic, were bought by European Union banks, so to strengthen our banks the Council welcomed the comprehensive action on liquidity, capital and funding guarantees of our Government here in the United Kingdom and of the eurozone countries under the leadership of President Sarkozy, President Barroso and the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet. The Council also welcomed the joint commitment from the leaders of the G8 countries to hold a leaders meeting, and agreed the principles and priority areas for global action.
	Stage one to recovery has been to stabilise financial markets, thereby securing a resumption of lending. In Britain almost £50 billion has been injected as capital into our banks. The Government alone have taken shares worth £37 billion in two of our largest banks. Across the world more than £300 billion has now been approved from public funds to recapitalise the banking system.
	At the heart of the British decision was that medium-term funding was conditional on bank recapitalisation. So we also welcome the agreement of the European Council that countries within the EU will provide medium-term state guarantees for new interbank loans. I particularly welcome the decision of the European Investment Bank, following proposals that we made at the G4 summit in Paris earlier this month, to mobilise and frontload €30 billion to support new lending to Europe's, and then Britain's, small businesses.
	However, confidence today depends upon there being confidence about the future, so we agreed on the need to achieve a reform of the global financial system based upon five key principles—transparency, integrity, responsibility, sound banking practice and international governance, with co-ordination across borders. We will submit a detailed set of proposals to the international leaders meeting. I will be putting these proposals to all countries, including emerging market countries. I have already put them to President Bush and will put them to both presidential candidates in the United States of America.
	I can tell the House today that these proposals include insisting on openness and disclosure, with off-balance sheet vehicles brought back on to balance sheets, greater transparency around the use of credit derivatives, and a rapid adoption of internationally agreed accounting standards so that value-impaired assets can no longer be hidden; and then removing once and for all the conflicts of interest that have distorted behaviour and undermined trust, so that credit rating agencies no longer act as advisers to the companies they rate, and executive remuneration rewards not excessive or irresponsible risk-taking, but hard work, enterprise, effort and responsible risk-taking.
	We must also ensure that board members have the competence and expertise to manage the risks for which they are ultimately responsible, and cannot walk away from their obligations. We will look at regulation that examines both solvency and liquidity and which ensures that the financial system supports wider economic stability. There will be a new international architecture for the global financial sector for the years ahead.
	We want to move to early decisions with our international partners about the reform of the International Monetary Fund and Financial Stability Forum, including the creation of an early warning system for the global economy; about globally accepted standards of supervision applied equally and consistently in all countries; about effective cross-border supervision of global firms, starting with establishing 30 international colleges of supervisors by the end of this year; and about cross-border co-operation and concerted action in a crisis. We also want to see greater global macro-economic co-ordination, and to prevent the return of protectionism we want to see the reopening of the world trade talks. I welcome the proposals that have come from the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
	The events of the last few days have demonstrated that we need urgently to deploy in eastern Europe and emerging markets the IMF's facilities and resources to the fullest extent, and also the resources of the multilateral development banks. We need urgently to prevent capital flight, engage in and support counter-cyclical policies and finance domestic growth where exports have declined and capital has flown outwards. We also need urgently to consider creating a new IMF facility for emerging economies in the current crisis. Rescuing eastern European countries is particularly urgent and I have asked the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank and the World Bank, as well as the IMF, to consider what they can do immediately.
	The Council also discussed in detail how each of our economies was being affected by the global downturn that started in America. Had we not acted to stabilise the banking system, the effect on households and business would have been even more severe. However, notwithstanding the action that has been taken, the world is facing a severe global economic downturn, with negative growth already seen in France, Germany and Italy this year, and in the United States last year.
	The United Kingdom cannot insulate itself from this global downturn, but with interest rates low and falling and inflation expected to come down over the next year, these underlying economic indicators, particularly interest rates, make us stronger than at any other previous downturn. Debt has been considerably lower than a decade ago, and lower than that of all G7 countries except Canada, enabling the Government to increase borrowing at the right time to support the economy. The Government will do whatever it takes for mortgage holders, for small firms and for employees, to help families and businesses through what will undoubtedly be a difficult period ahead.
	Like all Governments across the world, we are considering how fiscal policy can support the economy at this time: carefully targeted, rigorously worked through investments that help people fairly through the downturn and lay the foundations for stronger growth in the future. In Britain's case, we can start from a position of low public debt. We will bring the same focus and determination to the task of safeguarding jobs, homes and small businesses as we have done to avert the threatened meltdown of financial systems. That will be the central mission of this Government over the coming weeks and months. I welcome the support in the national interest of all prepared to give that support. Let us be clear: it is also action that we take globally to get to the root of the problem in global banking that will make the biggest difference.
	The Council also reached important conclusions on energy and climate change, on Russia and Georgia and on the European pact on immigration and asylum. Next year in Copenhagen, the world has an historic opportunity to secure prosperity for generations ahead with international action on climate change. While there are those who will seek to use current global financial problems as an excuse to pull back from change—to pull up the drawbridge and renege on commitments—in fact it is now more essential than ever to push forward with an ambitious agenda on energy security and climate change.
	As the Stern report showed, weak or delayed action will cost us more in the years to come, both financially and economically. The Council reaffirmed its commitment to reach agreement by December on its energy and climate change measures for 2020. We made clear the importance in doing so of achieving a fair balance, with all member states accepting new commitments. We made it clear that there must be flexibility for member states to meet targets in the most cost-effective way, and that Europe's package must send the strongest possible signal to encourage the rest of the world to aim high at the Copenhagen summit next year.
	As last week's statement from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change made clear, the Government are committed to the most ambitious of targets—cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent. by the middle of this century, not just for the future of our environment but as a crucial part of our strategy for energy security. But we cannot fulfil our aspirations for climate change without nuclear power or without European and international co-operation. That is why we will fully engage with the European Union on the environment and will not pursue a policy based on unilateralism and detachment.
	Faced with historically high and volatile oil prices, it is more essential than ever before that we act to end our dependency on oil. The European Council supported greater diversification of energy sources, the completion of fully functioning EU energy markets, and improved critical energy infrastructure—for example, in the southern corridor. Our London energy meeting in December will seek to drive forward progress in the critical dialogue between oil producing and oil consuming nations. Today I would urge the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, at its meeting on Friday, to work through dialogue with consumer countries to stabilise the energy market as a whole.
	The Council has expressed its grave concern over Russia's actions in Georgia and called on all sides to implement in full the six-point plan agreed with European leaders. The Council therefore welcomed the withdrawal of Russian troops as an essential additional step in the implementation of the agreements of 12 August and 8 September and the launching in Geneva of the international discussions provided for by those agreements. The Council and the Commission will, however, continue to make a full in-depth evaluation of relations with Russia ahead of the EU-Russia summit. The Council also resolved to continue its support for its eastern neighbours in their efforts to achieve democracy and economic modernisation and to consider a future EU eastern partnership.
	Finally, the Council considered the European pact on immigration and asylum, underlining the importance of ensuring coherence between Union policies, including free movement. Britain and Europe benefit economically from free movement, but free movement cannot be an unfettered right. It must bring with it clear responsibilities, with failure to meet them carrying clear consequences including, where appropriate, the loss of that right entirely. I discussed this point in further detail with a number of European leaders at the Council, building considerable support among member states and agreement to look further at the responsibilities associated with free movement where crimes are committed by EU residents in the EU but outside their country of origin, and we agreed to return to this issue at our December meeting.
	This summit showed that in facing global challenges, whether the credit crunch, climate change or energy security, we succeed best not in isolation but in co-operation, not with unilateralism and separation from our European neighbours but in active partnership with them. That is why our policy will rightly remain one of being fully engaged at the centre of Europe. I commend this statement to the House.

Stephen Hammond: The Prime Minister continues to quote the historic borrowing number, but will he confirm that if one examines the true state of borrowing in this country, including off-balance-sheet liabilities, true borrowing is 126 per cent. of GDP?

Gordon Brown: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's recollection of history, but I should tell him that AIG is an insurance company—it is not registered as a bank in the same way—and that in the old days it would have been regulated as an insurance company, not as a bank. I should also tell him that he opposed, or his party opposed, the independence of the Bank of England, which is something that I believe his party came to regret after a few years. The Bank of England has always had responsibility —[Interruption.] It is very interesting that Conservative Members try to change the subject whenever I mention the independence of the Bank of England. It has always been the case that the Bank of England has had responsibilities for financial stability.

Charles Walker: As the Prime Minister is going large on intervention, will he personally intervene with the banks to stop them from throwing people out of their homes? As a taxpayer-owner of the banks, I now say, "Not in my name."

Gordon Brown: I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a moderate man, will realise the exaggerations that he has made. We have had the longest period of economic growth as a single Government, we have created 3 million jobs over the past 10 years and the reason why we can face a world downturn with confidence that we can come through it, is that we have low debt and low interest rates, companies' funds outside the financial sector are strong and we are making the right long-term decisions for the future of this country. The decisions that we are making include decisions on transport and infrastructure, nuclear energy and planning. The unfortunate thing is that in all those major long-term decisions we have not had the support of the Conservative party.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Shortly after Labour's general election victory in 1997, to implement a key manifesto commitment, our then Prime Minister invited the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under its then chairman, Lord Neill of Bladen, to conduct a major inquiry into the funding of political parties. Lord Neill's report was published in 1998. It was followed by a White Paper and draft Bill that I published in 1999. The process of consultation on that draft Bill culminated with the passage of what became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in autumn that year.
	Lord Neill's report and the subsequent Act were based on some key and agreed principles that are fundamental to the health of any democratic system. They are that there should be clear limits on the amount that can be spent by political parties on election campaigns and that voters have a right to know who is funding those parties. To ensure that those principles were put into practice, PPERA—the 2000 Act—set out a new regulatory regime and established the independent Electoral Commission, to be answerable to the House, and not, I should add, to any Minister. Although there was, quite properly, careful scrutiny of the Government's proposals, and arguments about some of them in the 1999 Bill that became the 2000 Act, I was determined that there should be cross-party consensus on the new Act if it was at all achievable, and indeed it was. I was, and still am, in no doubt that the need for broad consensus in this area of policy is a third key principle.
	By any international standard British politics is fundamentally clean, because of spending limits, transparency and our political culture; but ultimately it is clean because there has been an understanding between the parties that changes made to secure partisan advantage would be impermanent and would serve only to undermine the public's faith in the democratic process. For a wide range of matters that come before the House, the knowledge of Members is necessarily at one remove. We articulate the experiences of our constituents, of business people, homeowners, the elderly and the young, and only sometimes will they be within the direct experience of individual Members and their families. However, in the area of party funding and control, Members articulate their experiences and, understandably, every Member claims expertise, so I make the following remarks with some trepidation.
	First, the reforms that the House agreed in the 2000 Act were, and are, fundamentally right. The historical system of controls on candidate spending was a necessary response in the days when election campaigns were fought entirely at local level, but those controls were not on their own sufficient for the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, when general election campaigns are co-ordinated at national level and often commence many months, or sometimes years, before the official starting gun is fired.
	Secondly, the old system, which was in essence one of self-regulation, had its advantages, as do all systems of self-regulation, especially for those being regulated, but over the past 20 years the House has increasingly insisted that one area of society's activities after another should be subject to external regulation. That is why a decade ago the House, led by my party, decided that we needed to prescribe for ourselves the remedies that we were prescribing for others.
	Thirdly, there is recognition that the new system of transparency and of more comprehensive regulation is what the public expect. However, as is almost inevitable with a new system of regulation, not every aspect of it has worked out as well as was intended, so 10 years on from Lord Neill's report it is right to take account of those experiences and revisit the 2000 Act framework to ensure that its key features—transparency, sensible control on spending and an effective Electoral Commission—are maintained, strengthened and, where necessary, reformed.

Jack Straw: Both factors are involved. The Committee on Standards in Public Life used exactly the same adjectives as my hon. Friend; it said that it was too weak in some areas and too strong in others. The issue is partly to do with its powers. Far from strengthening the total powers of the commission, this Bill qualifies powers and provides additional but more sensible powers. Another factor has been the nature of the commission and the fact that individuals with recent political experience have not served on it. The Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Constitutional Affairs Committee both recommended that a minority of commissioners should have practical experience from across the political spectrum. Those bipartisan reviews also recommended that the commission's regulatory role should be clarified, that its investigatory powers should be changed and that it should be given a flexible range of civil sanctions to enable it to consider alternative avenues in cases where breaches have occurred and where the only options at present—this a part-answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—are to name and shame or to refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service or the police with a view to a criminal prosecution. The Bill takes forward all those proposals, and I shall come to their detail in a moment. There is already all-party consensus on these changes in principle, and relevant measures are included in the Bill. However, I hope that through the process of parliamentary scrutiny we can carefully examine them and improve their detailed operation where necessary.
	In addition to reform of the Electoral Commission, the Bill contains important measures to ensure that the true source of donations to political parties is made known to the public. All parties have called for openness and transparency in party funding, so I hope that these measures will secure all-party support as well. It has been a common aim of all legislation, going right back to 1883, that overall spending by parties should be controlled. While of course there may be argument about exactly how to control it, that common aim continues to be shared by the parties. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who said last year that
	"we are much more interested in reducing the cost of politics and that is what David Cameron has made clear."
	The Bill therefore includes measures to improve the control of spending. Although there are strong arguments in favour of a comprehensive overhaul of the system of expenditure controls—to pick up on a point made by Liberal Democrats—and Sir Hayden recommended the introduction of what amounted to continuous all-encompassing spending caps, it is clear that there is not currently consensus on taking such a step. Consequently, I have not included those proposals in the Bill.

Gavin Strang: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the state funding of political parties, but in its evidence to the Neill commission, the Conservative party said that it was relaxed about trade union funding supporting the Labour party. I feel that the fundamental issue is the Conservative party's unwillingness to make a distinction between a donation from a trade union and an affiliation fee. The Labour party is a federal party. The trade unions pay affiliation fees, participate in our affairs and help to make our policies. That is very different from what happens in the other parties.

Francis Maude: I will finish my point first, if I may, because it is important.
	When, during the discussions, we canvassed the possibility of something so simple and basic that most people might think it already existed—a simple box on a trade union membership application form to be ticked by an applicant wishing to opt either in or out of the political levy and thus the affiliation fee; we left aside the question of which it should be—the Labour party representatives were not even willing to discuss that as an option.
	As I have said, the idea that this could in any sense be a voluntary donation was blown out of the water. If the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has any influence with his colleagues, as I am sure he has, I ask him to encourage them to revisit the issue. Sorting it out would be a major step forward.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is an interesting disjuncture between the lack of any requirement of individual voter registration, except in Northern Ireland, and the process that an expatriate voter has to go through to register. It is extraordinarily difficult and immensely more burdensome than what someone in Northern Ireland has to do under the requirements of individual voter registration. As he rightly points out, the result is that an extremely small proportion of those who are entitled to vote are able, or encouraged, to do so. It would be useful for the Electoral Commission to do more to encourage them. Whether they are expatriate or live in this country, those who are legally entitled to vote should be encouraged to do so.
	Clause 2 would extend significantly the Electoral Commission's investigatory powers. We all agree that the commission must have appropriate powers to enable it to carry out its duties, but there is real concern about the proliferation of search and entry powers. Last year, the Prime Minister himself seemed to share that concern. He pledged last October to curtail powers of entry with what he described as a new "liberty test". He pledged that any change to entry powers would be accompanied by new guidance on using such powers and on the rights of members of the public to be guarded against abuse. He said:
	"I share the concerns about the need for additional protections for the liberties and rights of the citizen. And I believe that one of the strongest guarantees is a clear understanding of what these rights are and that is more difficult with the very existence of hundreds of laws...
	But it is not enough to clarify and subject these powers to the liberty test. Any change should be and will be accompanied by guidance on how these powers should be exercised and the rights members of the public have to take action if those expectations are not met. And we should consider whether we need to do more to offer redress for the individual against any disproportionate use of powers by the state."
	That is pretty clear, one might have thought, so it is disappointing that contrary to what he promised no supporting guidance on the use of the powers has been produced. The Bill fails to meet the conditions and tests laid down in that speech.
	The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) raised a further important consideration. Invoking draconian powers of search and entry in respect of any donor, political officer or candidate, or any of the huge number of volunteers trying to do the right thing by engaging in politics for the best of public-spirited reasons, compounds the sense that making donations to political parties is inherently dodgy rather than a public-spirited activity essential to a healthy democracy. It should be noted by the House that the first time that those powers are used to kick down a party donor's door will be another step away from voluntary support of parties and towards total state funding—that will be a sad day indeed. Thus, the powers must be exhaustively examined in Committee, and we hope that the Government will think again about them.
	Clause 8 requires all those donating or lending more than £200—the de minimis level—to a political party to give the party a written declaration about the original source of the funds. Political parties will be required to confirm that they have received such declarations and to take "reasonable steps" to verify them. We, like all parties, are concerned—the Justice Secretary helpfully recognised that it is a proper concern—that that imposes a disproportionate and excessive regulatory burden. Rather than helping parties to broaden their fundraising, a broad desire to which all parties have subscribed, the requirement will put off small donors and discourage voluntarism.
	Sections 40, 54 and 61 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 already prohibit donors from concealing the source of donations by channelling money through others—the use of proxy donations by Mr. Abrahams was already illegal. Moreover, if a members' association is used as an agency to channel a donation from a particular donor, that original donor must be declared under the law, as it stands.
	Importantly, the Electoral Commission has said:
	"we believe that the benefits of these changes will be quite limited, since all they do is place additional procedural requirements on donors and recipients. They will not extend the current restrictions on concealing donations, nor will they add materially to the transparency of party funding as the new declarations will not be sent to the Commission or made public. However, they will impose potentially substantial new regulatory burdens on parties and donors. It is not presently clear whether the benefits of these provisions will be sufficient to justify those new burdens."
	As we know, the Electoral Commission always expresses itself with the utmost delicacy, but it must be clear to all that it is saying that these provisions will mean a minimal benefit but a massive burden.

John Mann: The right hon. Gentleman rightly suggests that those powers should be strengthened and that unincorporated bodies should make declarations to the Electoral Commission. He stated that a law already covered the requirement for donations of more than £200 by an unincorporated association to be declared, but that is not the Electoral Commission's view. When asked, its written response to myself and others has been that unincorporated bodies do not have to provide such information. That is a huge gap in the law, is it not?

Francis Maude: It is not news to anyone that Bearwood is a company associated with Lord Ashcroft. The trail shows that clearly, and it is not a secret. The money comes from legitimate activities conducted in the United Kingdom, and therefore the donation is legitimate and permissible. I see no evidence to suggest that anything other than that is the case. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is not the case, I suggest that he take it up with the Electoral Commission.
	The activities that have been described are already illegal, and the Electoral Commission has made it crystal clear that the Bill provides no better protection for the public interest in transparency than we have already. All the Bill would be is a massive hammer blow against exactly the sort of voluntarism and wider participation that we all genuinely want to see happening. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Justice has accepted the need to go back to the drawing board on that provision.
	I now move on to the partisan heart of the Bill. It was a grave disappointment when over the summer the Secretary of State committed, in the White Paper, to the measure in clause 10: the reintroduction of "triggering", the archaic, confusing and discredited system under which many of us were elected and re-elected—indeed, some of us lost elections, too. It is the system in which election spending limits are triggered when a candidate first does something that is capable of being interpreted as campaigning to be elected to Parliament.
	The Secretary of State rightly makes much of the fact that when he took through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, he did so on a consensual basis. That is indeed to his credit. In his statement in the summer, he made a brave stab—and he tried to continue it this afternoon—at maintaining that this provision would also be consensual, on the slender ground that the then Conservative spokesman in the other place had tabled some probing amendments on the removal of triggering.

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman makes an ingenious point. I shall deal briefly with the communications allowance and its implications a little later on.
	It is legitimate to ask whether the lack of certainty under the previous regime can adequately be dealt with by a combination of statute law and clear guidance. Possibly it can, but it will require much more time, which brings me to the second objection to the provision. The idea that it could be allowed to come into effect at Royal Assent, let alone from today's date, is both mad and wrong. The Justice Secretary's original and outrageous suggestion in his statement in the summer was that the measure could be backdated to the date of Second Reading. That is absolutely monstrous. Such premature commencement is in breach of the Government's code of practice on issuing guidance—their guidance on guidance—which states that guidance should be issued three months before any regulation comes into effect:
	"To give organisations time to prepare for regulations, guidance will be issued at least 12 weeks before a regulation comes into effect, with some necessary exceptions, e.g. emergencies."
	In the case of the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) it may feel like an emergency, but I doubt whether it would quite measure up to one in the national scale of things. The guidance continues:
	"Sometimes more than 12 weeks will be needed, for example if a regulation is complex or costly to implement."
	The provision is both complex and costly.

Francis Maude: I want to make progress. I am conscious that we are taking up too much time and that many other Members want to speak. I have given way generously throughout my speech.
	The Electoral Commission said that it could not issue draft guidance until Royal Assent, and that it would then expect to consult very fully on such guidance before it became final. In the note on the White Paper circulated to the parties, the commission stated:
	"It would take some time after Royal Assent to finalise and issue any guidance."
	I hope the Justice Secretary is listening. I am setting out the Electoral Commission's view about his provision and what would be involved:
	"The Commission would have strong reservations about the practicality of enforcing new rules which depended upon such guidance until the date at which the final guidance was available. The Commission also strongly supports the recommendation of the Gould review of the 2007 Scottish elections, that no changes to the rules surrounding elections should be applied to an election held within six months of those changes coming into force."
	It is unseemly haste to bring into effect a discredited system; it is unnecessary and will compound bad law with reckless implementation.
	The third objection to the provision is that it is in effect retrospective. Hundreds of parliamentary candidates from all parties are already in place across the country. Perfectly properly and in accordance with the law that the Justice Secretary himself brought in, they have conducted themselves in a way that under the old rules would have triggered their election expenses. If this monstrous provision came into effect they would have to find some absurdly artificial way of "detriggering", which would involve taking down websites, pulping literature and changing already published material.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is facing an outstanding and energetic Conservative candidate so I can see why he feels sensitive about the matter. It makes my whole point: this is a thoroughly partisan piece of legislation, which it is wrong to introduce in this way. The fact that two Labour Members in marginal seats, with energetic candidates on their tails, object so strongly, makes the case that this legislation is not in the public interest—it is in the Labour party interest.
	The important point is that even if agreed clear guidance were in place so that there was no uncertainty, there would still be a massive, hugely effective penalty on candidates who have behaved completely properly in accordance with the law that the Justice Secretary himself brought in. The House should always reject retrospection and for that reason alone I hope the Justice Secretary will withdraw the proposal.

Gavin Strang: I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words in the debate. The speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), which was an excellent statement of the Conservative party's position, clearly reflected the failure of the two main parties to reach some sort of agreement on the main elements of what could have been a comprehensive package. Having listened to the interventions that have been made, I think that it might be possible to cobble together a majority, with Liberal support. It is undoubtedly right that we should have the objective of securing consensus. Indeed, I was one of a handful of Members of Parliament who gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life inquiry on the Electoral Commission, and that was one of the points that I made then. There is probably no one in the House who disagrees with the proposition that it would have been much better if it had been possible to achieve an overall agreement on the next stage.
	I am proud of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Okay, there was an omission in relation to commercial loans, but I do not think that that was the result of collusion between the two major parties; people genuinely had not thought the matter through sufficiently. It is quite a remarkable omission, when one thinks of it, but no one from any of the Opposition parties raised the issue at the time, so a subsequent piece of legislation had to be introduced to deal with it. There is no doubt that we on the Labour Benches are entitled to be proud of the changes that have been made and the transparency that has been introduced. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary played a major role in that, and the 2000 Act is the centrepiece of those changes.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life produced its report on the Electoral Commission in January 2007. I think that the proposed changes have broad support; that, as I understand it, is the Conservative party's position, too. It makes sense to appoint some commissioners—obviously a minority—who have some sort of political background, not least for the reason that the right hon. Member for Horsham gave: there is a big distinction between an advisory committee and having people on the commission, where the decisions are taken, who have experience of politics. He seemed to suggest that those commissioners would be politicians or ex-politicians, but I assume that they would be drawn from a wider group than that; they might be people who had stood for Parliament, or for local government, or who had a track record as an election agent, or had been local chairmen of a political party. Someone who had been a fairly senior party organiser might be considered. I have no strong view on that, but I support the principle of incorporating people with some political experience directly in the commission.
	The guts of the issue is the question of expenditure by political parties nationally and locally. I strongly support limits and controls. If we do not have them, we will go further and further towards the US system, in which colossal sums of money are involved. It so happens that this time around, perhaps unusually, the candidate one might expect me to support, Obama, will massively outspend the Republican candidate, but that is an aside. We should have effective limits and controls on expenditure; I think that that is accepted across the House. A lot of national expenditure is wasteful; one might consider some of the huge adverts deployed, usually by the major parties, in newspapers and billboards. Some of them—I include my party's adverts, as well as those of the Conservative party—have done the parties no good whatever in my constituency.

John Hemming: I was indeed aware that the Musicians Union was affiliated to the Labour party. However, I was not aware that that included me as an individual. That is an important point which the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) should recognise.

David Howarth: I have been rather disturbed by how inward-looking this debate has been so far. We appear to be talking among ourselves and completely ignoring the view that people outside have of democratic politics, which we create by our actions and through this sort of debate. Outside the House, there is a crisis of confidence in our democracy, and it is just as profound as the crisis of confidence in the financial markets. Both issues are ultimately about trust—about whether one party trusts what another sells it in the market, or whether individual voters and electors trust anything that politicians say about their motives and what they really think.
	One of those crises would be bad enough, but the combination of the two—the crisis of confidence in democracy and the economic crisis—gives me a sense of foreboding, and we should take the issue more seriously than we have so far in this debate. We need to act as decisively to restore confidence in our democracy as we have to restore confidence in our banks. If we do not, we will open the door to a situation in which populist extremists can exploit the economic situation while declaring that conventional, democratic politics has failed. That is what happened in the 1930s, and we must do everything that we can to ensure that it does not happen again.
	The problem with party funding scandals is their cumulative effect on how people see politics. In a way, the details are not important. As we have seen here tonight, there is a tendency for a kind of card game to be played in how we debate things: one party plays Michael Brown, another plays Lord Ashcroft; one plays the Midlands Industrial Council, another plays the trade union card. We could talk about the £1 million donors to the Labour party, Bernie Ecclestone or David Abrahams, but none of them is the real point. The short-term advantages to any of us of having an opportunity to pin something discreditable on a political opponent are massively outweighed by the damage done to democracy itself by a constant message that politics is not about values and ideas but about buying power and access, and that politics has nothing to offer except to rich donors or powerful interest groups.
	All that is entirely exacerbated by the rise of nationally funded and nationally controlled modern campaigning techniques: the direct mail, the phone banks, the mass texting, the e-mailing, the push polling and so on. All that gives people outside this place the impression that politics is now a matter of mass manipulation, not of mass participation.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission was created to be independent, but it has to be answerable to someone for pay and rations, as it were, and the body to whom it is responsible is the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, on which I sit. I am the Chairman of the informal sub-Committee of the Speaker's Committee and I answer to the House on behalf of that Committee. I am Mr. Speaker's nominated deputy as Chairman of that Committee. I thus thought it appropriate to make some comments on the legislation before us.
	The Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission supports the principle of the recommendations in the 11th report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was the genesis of the Bill. The principle is that there should be representation of politics and the political process at the highest level. The Speaker's Committee took the view that that would improve the overall effectiveness of the commission. On the CSPL report, the Committee noted that the individuals appointed
	"should bring their experience to bear in a non-partisan manner. The appointment process for such Commissioners would need to be consistent with this."
	The Speaker's Committee went on to say in its response that there would be difficulties in the representation of small parties and it took note that that problem would need to be addressed. I observe that the Speaker's Committee has, in practice, been appointed and asked by the Speaker to advise on the appointment of the Chairman and members of the commission and that clause 4 effectively endorses the practice that has emerged from the Speaker's Committee.
	As I said earlier, I am not proposing to burden the House with the views of the hon. Member for Gosport this evening, but I want to put on record some comments by the Electoral Commission. I ask to be allowed to be a conduit for the point of view of that commission and to put on the record any points that it believes should be recognised. The first of those is that the commission welcomes the provision to amend its sanctions and investigative powers and, with some qualification, the proposed changes to the rules on recent political activity for its employees. However, the Electoral Commission has expressed concerns about the proposals to change the rules on the appointment of electoral commissioners.
	As to the Electoral Commission's sanctions and investigative powers, it has for some time expressed the view that it should be given more tools to establish the facts in any case, and to take appropriate and proportionate enforcement action where necessary. The commission believes that the proposed changes to its investigation and sanctioning powers will achieve that end within a well recognised framework of good regulatory practice. The proposed sanctions are consistent with those provided by other regulators under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 and are, quite rightly in the commission's view, set within a framework of procedural safeguards, including new rights of appeal.
	Several hon. Members, notably the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), have expressed concerns about the powers that the Electoral Commission already has. It would like to point out that under section 146 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it already has powers to enter premises and demand documents. In fact, the commission has only once served notice that it requires documents to be produced to it, and it has never used its powers to enter premises.
	If hon. Members are concerned about the broad range of powers to enter premises and the other powers given to the Electoral Commission in the Bill, I suggest that it is entirely appropriate for those concerns to be raised in Committee, and I am sure that the commission will be happy to discuss the regulatory sanctions it has and the need for breadth.
	On commissioners with recent party political involvement, the commission has set out its concerns to hon. Members about the proposed changes to the rules on the appointment of electoral commissioners. As has been well rehearsed, as things stand the commissioners must not have political experience. The commission said that it understands and agrees with the intention behind the provisions in the Bill. It must have a thorough and up-to-date understanding of the way political parties work, and it therefore welcomes the proposal to relax the restrictions on recent political activity for most employees, which it believes would go a long way towards meeting this need. It has stated, however, that it would like to extend the proposed new five-year rule to posts other than that of chief executive.
	The commission notes that clause 5(3) states that commissioners appointed from a political background should not participate in boundary decisions, but it takes the view that there are a wider range of issues with which it becomes involved, and it believes it appropriate for the Committee to consider carefully a range of activity in which commissioners with a political background should not participate in discussions. It takes the view that the participation of commissioners with a political background in discussions involving exclusion, criminal sanctions against individuals and so on could give rise to legal challenges on procedural grounds of alleged bias. I am sure that the Committee will want to take account of that; indeed, I see the Minister acknowledging that there is a point to be considered.
	The regulated period for candidate expenses has been commented on and criticised by many hon. Members. The Bill proposes that the regulated period should start when expenditure is incurred
	"for the purposes of a candidate's election."
	The trigger would be activity on the part of the candidate, whether or not they were declared as a candidate at that time. As with any change to the rules, the commission has stated that it will produce guidance for parties and candidates on what they will need to do to finalise the process as soon as possible after Parliament has completed its consideration of the legislation. In the commission's view, the more precisely Parliament defines the kind of behaviour that will trigger the regulated period, the more straightforward the commission's guidance on how to comply with the legislation is likely to be.
	The Bill proposes to require those donating or lending more than £200 to a party to provide a written declaration about the original source of the funds. The commission has said that although it generally supports any measures designed to underline the principle of transparency, it has concerns about the compliance burden those provisions would place on parties. The commission is not convinced that the benefits of the new rules would justify that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made the point that we must not discourage voluntarism. It is important to ensure that people are prepared to work for political parties, and they should not be discouraged from doing so.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make these contributions, which were put to me by the Electoral Commission. I am obliged to the House; I hope that the points will be considered by the Committee, and that the House will forgive me for referring more heavily to notes than usual because I wanted to make the points made to me by the commission.

Martin Linton: I start by welcoming the Bill. It is limited and focused on specifics, and it is intended to be. I would support spending caps and caps on individual donations, and I would support a greater degree of state funding. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I spelled out all my views in a pamphlet many years ago. It was called "Money and Votes", and was published by the Institute for Public Policy Research in 1994. Many of those proposals went to the Neill Committee and became part of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	I fully recognise, however, that the agenda is still unfinished. There are many things that should be in a second political parties Act. I would argue, however, that those things should not be in this Bill, which is about closing the gaps and loopholes in existing political parties legislation. Clause 8 deals with what one might call the Coleshill manor clause—unincorporated associations. Clause 10 is what I would call the Ashcroft loophole clause. I know that the noble Lord did not invent, create or cause the loophole, but he was the person who first exploited it as a donor, and he is now doing so as deputy chair of the Conservative party. Clause 11 is what one might call the autumn election clause, dealing with registration during the notifying period.
	While many other reforms may be desirable, I should point out to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) that although opposition often takes the form of delay, he should beware of supporting opposition that is intended to cause delay and to defend unfair and unintended advantages enjoyed by one party. It is hugely important to implement the Bill in good time before the next election. That point is almost too obvious to make. Like many of my hon. Friends, my prospective opponents in my constituency are the recipients of Ashcroft money, which gives them an unfair advantage. It is important to proceed as fast as possible with the Bill, which essentially will right the wrongs in the 2000 Act. Any attempt to put spending or donation caps in the Bill, desirable as those things might be, would undoubtedly be the cause of further delay. I would support minor amendments, such as lightening the burden on treasurers. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, I am equally grateful to the treasurer of my local party, Councillor Tony Belton, whom she knows well. He is one of many people who put up with a huge burden of regulation as the treasurer of a constituency party.
	The most important clause in the Bill is, in my view, clause 10. I have before me the  Hansard report of the famous night in the House of Lords when the loophole in question was inadvertently created. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has never tried to conceal the fact that it was a mistake. In fact, it was made in the House of Lords long after the Bill left the Commons. The crucial phrase was "the dissolution of Parliament", which only appeared in the Bill some time after it left this place. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that there was an amendment from a Conservative peer to remove the clause. It was not described by that peer as a probing amendment, but as a genuine point, and when the Minister, Lord Bach, asked him to withdraw the amendment so that he could look into the point, the Conservative peer agreed.
	There was consensus at the time, but a clearer sign that there was consensus was that the Opposition in the House of Commons did not, at any stage during Second Reading or the Committee dealing with the Bill, propose to remove triggering, or propose to remove the spending controls on local candidates. That was never mentioned during the debate. My only criticism of the Government is that it has taken us seven years to get from that initial mistake to a Bill that will close the loophole. I do not pretend that reintroducing triggering is a 100 per cent. foolproof way of preventing excessive candidate spending, but it is the best way available at the moment. I look forward to a Bill that will introduce limits on national and local spending that will be far more effective.

Martin Linton: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall take that up with my old friend and sparring partner Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, with whom I have often been happy to disagree on issues to do with party funding.
	I have always advocated—both to the Neill committee and to the Committee that dealt with the first political parties Bill—that it was wrong to distinguish between national and local spending, because it would lead to questions of definition and might create loopholes. I have always argued that, as in the Canadian system, a single limit should apply to both national and local spending. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, even at this late stage, to consider that as a far better solution. If national spending must be divided equally between all constituencies, the constituency limit effectively bites on the national spending limit, and there can be no room for moving spending from one category to the other.
	Clause 8 deals with unincorporated associations. I should have thought that that reform, too, was clearly intended. It was not intended in the 2000 Act that such associations should escape the disclosure provisions, and I have heard no Opposition Member argue that they deserve to.
	I see that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) is present. He was the beneficiary of a £3,000 donation from an organisation called the Churchill luncheon club. I am sure that it is an entirely legitimate organisation, but that £3,000 donation may conceal many donations over £200 which escape declaration simply by being channelled through the luncheon club. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman attends its meetings and has a very good lunch, but I should have thought that, as a believer in disclosure, he would be one of the first to insist that his donors are happy to declare their identity, if indeed their donations are above the disclosure limit. I look forward to hearing whether he thinks that there is any particular reason why they should be exempt.
	I shall now briefly refer to the parts of the Bill that deal with the Electoral Commission. I take very much the point that it has too few regulatory tools at its disposal—it can either issue a reprimand or refer to the police—and I agree that there should be many intermediate offences.
	I understand that the Minister has already said that there will be a careful consideration of proposed new schedule 19A to the 2000 Act and that his ears will be open to counter-proposals. There is a great deal of concern about the powers to enter MPs' offices and seize documents. The hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers), who speaks on behalf of the Speaker's Committee, says that these powers have been used only once, but if they are to be extended in this Bill it is important that we do not create a situation where people could feel at greater risk of unnecessary intrusion into their affairs. We have seen what has happened to some Members of this House. I shall not mention specific cases, but reporting an unintended failure to disclose to the police is an incredibly serious issue. That is a power that should be used with extreme caution, if at all—indeed, we should think very seriously about whether that power should exist.
	Let me make a final point. It is on the issue of consensus, which has been mentioned on all political sides in this debate. It is important that we understand the limits of consensus. It would, of course, be highly desirable for this Bill to be passed on the basis of consensus. Indeed, before tonight I expected the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to agree to these proposals, because, after all, they have always agreed to candidate limits, and they agree about the deficiencies that exist, and it was not intended that the 2000 Act should remove candidate limits. Therefore, there is no particular reason why any of the Opposition parties should vote against the Bill. However, we need to think back through history to 1976, when the Houghton committee, which the Labour Government set up in 1975, reported to the House on a series of proposals including disclosure of donations, donation limits, spending limits and an element of state funding. They were discussed more than 30 years ago. However, all those proposals had to be shelved because the Prime Minister of the day believed it was necessary to have consensus between all parties before progressing with any proposed party funding legislation. As a result nothing was done. I believe that happened because Lord McAlpine, who had recently become the treasurer of the Conservative party, had advised the then Leader of the Opposition that, however bankrupt their party was, doing as he said would hurt the Labour party more than them.
	Therefore, nothing was done, and we entered a period of 30 or so years when funding gradually fell into disrepute. The bottom of the barrel was scraped and scraped again, individual donations were chased, and millionaires were tapped for funds. I shall not embarrass the Conservative party by mentioning all the names involved in all the scandals of the 1990s, but they well know that as a result of that failure to tackle the issue in 1976 the politics of this country fell into disrepute, and now we are left, 30 years later, trying to pick up the pieces. Therefore, a Government should never hold back from doing what they believe is right simply because they cannot achieve a consensus, especially if that consensus is being unreasonably withheld by an Opposition who well know that their candidates are enjoying an unfair advantage, and when they never opposed candidate limits in the first place, but choose to oppose it now.
	I say to the Liberal Democrats that it would be terrible if they were to oppose the Bill simply because of what is not in it. They must judge the Bill by what is in it and whether it is right or wrong. It would be a dereliction of duty by both main Opposition parties if they failed to give this Bill a fair wind.

Andrew Turner: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers)—and, indeed, to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton). It occurs to me that there is nothing to prevent a Labour candidate or MP from doing exactly the same as the Conservatives have done in respect of Lord Ashcroft. However, I shall ignore that issue for most of my speech. Instead, I wish to raise some issues regarding elements of the Bill, and also to mention one issue that has been omitted.
	The new powers to be awarded to the Electoral Commission are of concern to me. I believe that some of the civil sanctions that the commission would be able to exercise following the enactment of the Bill may prove unacceptable in practice. Paragraph 10 of proposed new schedule 19B to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 allows the commission to impose so-called stop notices. These are to be imposed on individuals to prohibit them from carrying on an activity which the commission believes is "likely to involve" their committing an offence under the 2000 Act. The wording implies not "has done", but merely "may do". Likewise, a stop notice can be imposed if the commission believes the person's activities are likely to lead them to commit an offence or contravention of the Act.
	Does the Lord Chancellor recognise that those measures could interfere with an individual's wholly legal actions? An individual could be treated as if they had already committed an infringement, even if their actions never led to such an infringement. Is not the Electoral Commission's purpose to ensure that elections are run legally and to punish individuals appropriately once an infringement has occurred, and not before? Does the Lord Chancellor not also agree that absolute clarity is needed when qualifying situations that are deemed "likely" to lead to an offence?
	Also of great concern is a proposed change under clause 2 that would give the commission an investigative power akin to a search warrant. The power allows authorised commission staff to enter an individual's or party's premises to access financial records and information. In many situations, not least during an ongoing election campaign, such action would be highly disruptive; it may, in fact, damage the electoral system rather than safeguard it. Does the Lord Chancellor not agree that this power should be used only in the most serious circumstances? Would it not be better to have the power suspended during the period of an election campaign? Would not complaints escalate if it were possible for people to disrupt an opponent's campaign? Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the need to search a premises is so great that it would not be a police matter to begin with.
	The change under clause 7 that relaxes the political restrictions on membership of the commission is another concern. Currently, people must have had a 10-year period out of politics before they can become a commissioner. That prevents politically active and potentially partisan individuals, such as donors, party members or employees of political parties, from becoming commissioners. I accept the relaxation of political restrictions on the commission's chief executive from 10 to five years out of politics, but I feel that the relaxation for all other commission staff from 10 years to just one year is too extreme. I do not agree that any political member should be allowed to be the chief executive. The commission must be politically savvy, but not at a cost to its independence or credibility. Under the current proposals, it is not unfeasible that someone such as the former Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, could become a commissioner in a year and a day. Does the Lord Chancellor not agree that a period of at least one Parliament, or five years, out of politics is needed for all commission staff, to minimise the possibility of current politicians being investigated by their contemporary rivals—or indeed friends?
	One issue that is not covered in the Bill but requires serious consideration is the existence of multi-seat electoral divisions and how such boundaries are drawn up. In my constituency, Isle of Wight, 40 seats will be contested at the next county council elections. Among those, there are 38 single-seat electoral divisions and the solitary, and in my view anomalous, two-seat electoral division of Bembridge, Brading and St. Helens. Single-seat divisions enjoy the clear accountability afforded by a single elected member, but an unusual two-seat electoral division is more problematic.
	Whether a given geographical area has two single-seat divisions or one double-seat division can affect the outcome of an election. For example, in the case of two single-seat divisions, the Conservative party might win one with a large majority and the Labour party the other with a small majority. That is perfectly reasonable, because there will be two clear winners of the seats, one Conservative and one Labour. In a two-seat division covering the same area, with the same votes cast, the Conservative party would win both seats. My concern is that the drawing up of such boundaries could inadvertently lead to a less representative outcome for the voters. At least, it would be inadvertent on the part of the Boundary Commission; it could be a very advertent action by those who propose a multi-member constituency. That is an unacceptable state of affairs, and the matter should be investigated carefully.
	I agree that current legislation is imperfect and that changes must be made. The public must be shown that the electoral process, from funding to polling, is transparent and fair. I hope that the whole House will agree that we must be careful not to damage the current system or undermine the Electoral Commission's position with the very Bill that is designed to increase efficiency.

Tony Lloyd: I commend the final comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that the electoral system must be seen to be transparent and fair. One of the realities behind the Bill is that that is not accepted as being the case. Each one of us, as a serving politician, has a duty to engage in dialogue to try to ensure that we deliver to the people of this country a political system in which they can have confidence.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that paradoxically, even though there are things for us to consider, many people of all parties, including some whom I have known for many years, engage in party politics because they regard the political system as part of their public duty. We ought to point out that many of those people have credibility and integrity of the highest order. However, that gives us all the more reason to ensure that we have robust laws that crack down on the concerns that lead to suspicion that the political system is not as it should be.
	I shall start by mentioning certain aspects of the Bill that, although they may be non-controversial, I hope can be improved as it makes its way through its various stages. There is common agreement that the Electoral Commission needs improving. Most of us have been unhappy with its work, and I certainly welcome the fact that we are relaxing the limitations on those who can actively serve on it. We probably also need to consider the £200 spending limit that appears in the Bill, because there is concern in all parties that that does not reflect reality and will be an impediment not to those who wish to transgress spending rules but to those who are engaged in proper and acceptable politics.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of the concerns that have been raised about the concept of entry-and-search powers. I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that if things are so serious that entry and search are necessary, it probably ought to be the police who perform that function rather than the Electoral Commission. I do not wish to trivialise the matter, but there is something Monty Pythonesque, Spanish inquisition style, about the Electoral Commission entering somebody's home. It ought not to happen to people engaged in the proper activity of party politics at local or any other level.
	I wish to say a few words about the trigger. I am astonished that the Liberal Democrats seem to have switched their position on it entirely. It seems to me to be a rare occasion when their principles and expediency are pulling them in the wrong direction. Both principle and expediency ought to lie on the side of having the trigger, so they should consider carefully why they have come to their conclusions about it.
	I should like an even stronger trigger, and the concept of introducing a local trigger is important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) said, there should be no ambiguity about the debate that occurred some years ago in the House of Lords. It was entirely about the giving of reassurances that the trigger would remain in operation. That was the only reason why Lord Mackay, speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, withdrew his amendment. Opposition Members need only reread that debate to realise how central that was.
	I am not normally in the habit of wishing to say unkind things about other hon. Members' speeches, but the justification that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) gave in opposition to the trigger was astonishing. He said that there were many reasons for opposing it, but I think that he gave one. When the case of my erstwhile colleague Fiona Jones came to court, that was the difficulty in drawing a legal distinction between what was within and without the rules, because of the narrow nature of the trigger at the time. I would prefer to see proper whole-Parliament spending limits locally. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea that I would like it to be separate at national level, as there is an important distinction between the two. Nevertheless, whole-Parliament spending limits make an awful lot of sense. The right hon. Member for Horsham gave no proper reason why the Conservative party oppose them, other than expediency.

Martin Linton: The point about having a single limit on both national and local spending, as is done in Canada, is that the national limit—£20 million in this case—would be divided between each constituency and act as a constituency limit as well. That would prevent people from finding any loopholes by juggling money from one limit to the other.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), who made a thoughtful speech, and I agreed with what he said at the beginning about regulation and the powers of entry. However, I am afraid that I did not agree with him on clause 10 and the trigger mechanism. The Secretary of State for Justice can normally be relied on to make a robust defence of whatever proposition he is putting to the House, but when he reached clause 10 in his speech today he was extraordinarily defensive, with an over-reliance on an Opposition amendment tabled 10 years ago in the other place. Any objective listener to the debate will have found the counter-arguments, put first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), very powerful. He holed clause 10 below the waterline. Before the smoke had settled, there came another torpedo from the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), headed the same way. I shall be amazed if clause 10 survives its passage through both Houses in the form in which it is currently drafted.
	During the speech by my right hon. Friend, he put on the table a genuine offer that would deal with the Lord Ashcroft issue. We would be happy to discuss a cap on donations of £50,000. If the hon. Member for Manchester, Central and his colleagues are worried, that is an offer that should be pursued, because it would address some of their concerns.
	I agree with the Secretary of State that the regime introduced by the 2000 Act has, on the whole, worked fairly well, setting up the Electoral Commission and introducing controls on parties and elections. However, since its introduction, a range of committees has considered it—the Hayden Phillips report, the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and, of course, the Electoral Commission itself. The time has come to make some running repairs to the 2000 Act. Some of the recommendations from those bodies are included in the Bill, but some are not.
	I begin with a word of warning about the Government's approach to matters dealing with elections. Party advantage has not always been erased from their mind. When the original legislation went through, I was my party's spokesman on these matters and I recall that one key recommendation of the Neill Committee was not in the Bill: the principle of match funding to encourage party membership. The absence of that recommendation caused the Government much difficulty with the Bill in the other place. Since then, that recommendation has been repeated by several bodies. At the time, its omission was seen as partisan because it would have benefited the Conservative party. The alibi that that was unaffordable was destroyed by the Government's subsequent munificence in almost every field of public expenditure. I mention that in the context of today's debate because the Government have form in seeking to tweak electoral legislation for party advantage, and we need to be clear to prevent it from happening with this Bill. My right hon. Friend put down some markers in that respect, and I am sure that the other place is on red alert.
	I wish to speak briefly on two issues. The first relates to clause 5 and putting politicians on the Electoral Commission. The commission has made it clear that it does not like that suggestion. It has said:
	"We are deeply concerned that public confidence in the Commission's independence would be undermined as a result of the Government's proposals."
	That is seriously overplaying its hand. If four of the 10 commissioners were put forward by the leaders of the political parties, it would enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the commission, rather than contaminate its independence. Having met many of the commissioners, they did not strike me as people who would be walked over by politicians and of course they would remain a majority. Nor is it the case that politicians are always partisan. Anyone who has been a Minister or a Chairman of a Select Committee will realise that politicians are perfectly able to switch to neutral mode. If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Speakers are good examples of that. They are elected with a party hat, but they serve the House impartially and neutrally.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life has representatives of the political parties, and I have seen no evidence that people think it less independent because there are two MPs on it. My Committee has powers to make recommendations, and although it is composed solely of party politicians coming from four different parties, I do not believe that that has compromised its effectiveness or credibility. So I believe that the anxieties expressed by the commission on that score are misguided.
	My second point relates to clauses 2 and 3, coupled with schedule 1. I apologise to the hon. Member for Cambridge, because this is an internal matter for the House. The clauses will extend the investigative powers of the commission considerably, and Members of Parliament will be subject to the new provisions. This part of the Bill is relevant to the ongoing debate about how best to resolve the current requirement on colleagues to register certain interests both with the Registrar of Members' Interests here and with the Electoral Commission. How do the proposals to extend the investigatory powers of the commission and their application to MPs fit the provisions of section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which has not yet been brought into effect?
	When the 2000 Act was introduced, nobody spotted that it introduced two parallel reporting regimes for MPs, and that has caused much confusion. Colleagues who have registered their interests on the register here and whose entries are accessible online are now getting letters in some cases from the Electoral Commission saying that they have committed a criminal offence because they have not also registered the identical item with it. That is absurd, but it is what the law currently requires. That is why the House, after full consultation with the Electoral Commission, passed section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 which, in a nutshell, would introduce a one-stop shop for MPs in respect of the vast majority of what are called "permissible donations". We would register our interests here, and the commission would get the information which it required for its registers from us, streamlining and simplifying the process without compromising on transparency.
	Section 59 cannot be enacted without a commencement order laid by the Secretary of State. There is real pressure from both sides of the House to get on with this. This issue is central to assessing the impact that the proposals in the Bill will have on hon. Members, and other holders of "relevant elective office". In practice, once section 59 is commenced, MPs will remain subject to the overall legislation on donations, but would be relieved of the personal obligation to report each recordable donation we receive to the Electoral Commission as well as the register. Consequently, we will no longer be at risk of committing the criminal offences that can arise from a failure to comply in full with the statutory requirements. As such donations make up the overwhelming bulk of donations that Members report to the commission, the decision on commencement is of considerable significance when looking at the potential impact of this Bill on the House.
	So, what is the Government's policy on commencement of section 59, which they put on the statute book two years ago? The Secretary of State wrote to me in August, saying:
	"It might be considered that there is an inconsistency between the measures...to strengthen the Commission's powers and sanctions...and the removal of MPs from the investigatory and sanctioning powers of the Commission. I am concerned that commencement of section 59 could therefore prove difficult for the reputation of the House, particularly when viewed in the context of the reforms to the Electoral Commission which the PPE Bill proposes."
	That implies that the Government may now have set their face against bringing this provision into force. What the House needs today from the Minister is a clear commitment on whether the Government still support the commencement of section 59 and, if so, on what time scale. As he will know, the Standards and Privileges Committee is working towards creating a registration structure that is consistent with achieving that, and gave a commitment in our 13th report to the House before the summer recess that it would aim to make firm proposals shortly after the summer recess.
	If the Minister gives a clear commitment to the commencement of section 59, I can tell the House that it should be possible, subject to the Government's finding time, to complete the steps necessary to clear the way for commencement well before this Bill receives Royal Assent. There is widespread support across the House for an end to dual reporting of donations. Commencement of section 59, the inclusion of which in the 2006 Act all parties supported, as did the Electoral Commission, would achieve that for 99 per cent. of donations. I invite the Government today to confirm their commitment to taking that step.
	If the Government are unwilling now to commence section 59, I hope that the Minister will tell the House why, and what alternative plans he has for ending the thoroughly unpopular requirement for dual reporting. If legislation is needed to deliver an alternative approach, the Bill provides the appropriate vehicle. On a more consensual note, I am happy to discuss these matters further with the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission, but they will need to be taken forward urgently if the opportunity to change a system that many hon. Members find unacceptable is not to be lost.

Alan Whitehead: I apologise; 1880 was the year of the general election. I was thinking of the by-election. In the 1895 election in Southampton—my city—the Conservative candidate, Sir Tankerville Chamberlayne, arranged for a horse and cart to be deposited outside the Cowherds public house, which is at the top of the city. The cart was unhorsed and six strong men pulled it down Above Bar to the party headquarters, with Sir Tankerville standing in the back throwing out sovereigns as they went. Quite reasonably, that behaviour was reported to an election commission and he was unseated.
	The point of the story is that what appears, by suggestion, to be tolerated now is that the metaphorical throwing out of sovereigns in a modern context is okay until the day the election is called, but then it is not okay. Even the argument that candidates should spend money they have legitimately raised for themselves would stand objective examination only if one did not agree that there should be restraints on electoral expenditure during elections anyway.
	As I understand it, we all agree that there should be constraints on election expenditure locally during elections. In terms of the real electoral arms race, we all know that, increasingly, certain people will try to squeeze in as much expenditure as possible in the three, four or five months before the period in which election expenditure is capped, to get around the rule. In the absence of a wholesale consensus on how we cap electoral expenditure between elections, we might consider a trigger mechanism. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) said, we should provide the best possible definition of that trigger, so that some of the vagaries that beset the legislation that was in place before 2000 are done away with. Nevertheless, we should have a mechanism that provides a much more straightforward and logical approach to electoral expenditure.
	As for the Electoral Commission's powers to invade one's bedroom, suggested in proposed new schedule 19 to the 2000 Act, which follows clause 12, I hope that that issue will be considered carefully in Committee. There is indeed a logical disjunction between the Electoral Commission's power to deliver a rap on the knuckles and its power to refer someone to the police. It is logical and clear that there should be a staging point in between. It is up to the House, in Committee, to make sure that the staging point is reasonable, not unreasonable, and that it does not take us beyond the reality, which is that political parties are voluntary organisations that overwhelmingly have the best interests of the public at heart in their activities.
	I now come to the regulation of unincorporated bodies and the reporting of donations over a certain size from those bodies. I find the opposition to that proposal rather comical. It is plain that in a properly transparent system, the idea that money could be funnelled into a local campaign through certain unincorporated bodies, whether outside or inside the country, offends against the argument on giving money in the period immediately outside the restricted period of an election. It also offends against the principle to which, as I understand it, we all signed up when we talked about the fact that campaign money should be transparent and its origins fairly straightforward.
	Obviously, there is the issue of what the unincorporated body in question is doing. With an unincorporated body such as the Berkshire Supper Club, for example, one might think, "It's in Berkshire, and people have suppers there and donate money as a result; that seems fairly straightforward." If an organisation is called the East Surrey Business Club, I guess it would involve business people in Surrey making donations to bodies in Surrey. Similarly, a person might think that the Midlands Industrial Council was a body dealing with industrialists who work in the midlands. Well, they would be wrong. They would find that associations up and down the country, nowhere near the midlands, have benefited from donations from that organisation, and we do not know what the arrangements are. As to whether the body is industrial, we are not sure. If we are to deal with transparency, it is important that it should be proper transparency; there should not be transparency only for some.
	Counter-arguments against some measures in the Bill were put forward: it was said that the communications allowance meant that incumbents effectively got a great addition to their campaigning power, whereas their opponents did not. A great deal of effort has been made by the House authorities—the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee among them—to ensure that the communications allowance is used for communications purposes and not party political purposes. Indeed, a corpus of case law, as we might call it, is being developed that, say, sets out the acceptable ways in which a Member of Parliament can deliver a newsletter, or what one can and cannot address one's constituents about and so on. That ensures that the communications allowance is not used for political campaigning.

Andrew Tyrie: I am trying to agree with the hon. Gentleman; if he can contain himself for a moment, he will get a measure of support. However, he does not fully realise the implications of his own point. If he thinks that local campaigning, which MPs do a good deal of, has little impact, presumably he must conclude that local campaigning by candidates challenging incumbents also has relatively little impact. There is a huge amount of evidence to suggest that, too. In other words, we may all, Don Quixote-like, be tilting at the wrong issue in worrying so much about the effects of local campaigning.
	Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that in the UK there is virtually a blanket prohibition on a key use to which money can be put in this context: access to television. Television has driven the huge increases in expenditure in the United States. On grounds of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be no limits to the amount spent on television. The prohibition in this country is the key protection against the alleged huge arms race that has been mentioned, which can never be found in the figures—not in aggregate, at least, and certainly not on the scale alleged by a number of Members this evening.
	I should like to address two general, big issues. Both have been referred to and one was discussed at length by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) in his excellent speech about trust.
	As politicians, we have two big challenges. First, we need to restore the electorate's confidence in how we finance our parties, and there is agreement across the House that that is necessary. Secondly, we need to restore their faith in how elections are conducted.
	Despite its title, the Bill does little or nothing to address either of those issues. As a number of Members know, I have argued for a decade that there should be fundamental reform of party finances. To his considerable credit, within weeks of becoming Leader of the Opposition in 2005, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) came out in strong support of a radical set of proposals, very similar to those put forward by the Liberal Democrats in 2003 and to those put forward by Matt Taylor, then chief strategist for Tony Blair. Equally to his credit, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, more or less agreed that that was the way in which we needed to take policy, and he did that in the teeth of yet another huge funding scandal afflicting his party at the time. It was certainly courageous.
	Cleaning up this area of politics would require bold and radical steps of that type by both the major parties and by the Liberals. For my party, it would mean completely bringing to an end reliance on big individual donations and ending any hope that big business donations could be restored. For the Labour party, it would require ending dependence on big union donations, either directly or indirectly through affiliation fees. Tony Blair and the leader of my party were both prepared to act boldly on those issues. In order to achieve it, they agreed to create the process that led to the Hayden Phillips process. He was asked specifically to make recommendations on donation caps, but his terms of reference make no mention of spending or spending controls.
	One of the many proposals that Hayden made during the course of lengthy discussions—I participated in all of them—would have achieved the key objectives set out by the leaders of the major parties. For the first time, each trade union member would have been given a genuine, individual choice on whether to donate to a political party, and if so, which one.
	Affiliation fees were the stumbling block. The Justice Secretary, who is now back in his seat, still blocks the publication of that proposal. It is as though admitting to the unions and to the rest of the labour movement that he even held discussions on such an idea might taint him in some way. I can think of no reason why that proposal of Hayden Phillips should not be published. The nub of it and the reason why those talks broke down is that the courage that was being exhibited by Tony Blair appeared to evaporate as the discussions went on, as his power waned, and when he was replaced by the current incumbent. That is why the Conservatives eventually concluded that the talks had become pointless.
	The Bill is also silent on the second major area where we must act if we are to restore trust in politics. We need to clean up the malpractices and electoral fraud that have come with the Government's misguided relaxation of postal voter registration, which gave us elections so tainted that a High Court judge was moved to conclude that they
	"would disgrace a banana republic".
	It should be a relatively straightforward matter to clean this up through individual registration and voter identifiers. The Electoral Commission supports that; as far as I know, all political parties support it. Even the Government have said, and said again today, that they do not disagree in principle. Why on earth are the Government dragging their feet? We have had a lot of discussion about consensus. Consensus on individual registration exists right now. The Justice Secretary hid behind the need—I virtually quote him—for the details to be sorted out, but the Electoral Commission has already done most of that work. I very much hope that the Government will help us by amending the Bill to include individual registration as quickly as possible. I can see no possible explanation for their current inaction other than partisanship.
	So much for what is missing from the Bill—what about what is in it? As I said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham did a pretty good job on that. The Government said that they want to go ahead on the basis of consensus. However, as regards triggering rules for the purpose of calculating a candidate's election expenses, they have proposed a major change without any consultation at all. Sir Hayden did not opine on this—he was not even asked to consider it.
	What is more, the Government have announced that they want it on the statute book so that it can be operative immediately—in other words, so that it can influence the outcome of the forthcoming general election. In fact, they have said that they even want it to come into force before the Electoral Commission's guidance is published. That would create an extraordinary state of affairs, whereby people would be required to obey a law, on the content and meat of which they would have no information to guide them.
	All that sits rather oddly with the high-minded talk about consensus that we have heard from the Justice Secretary. He backtracked a little on that today, but it should not be lost on any of us that he has tried to railroad this proposal through without any consultation. He even originally wanted to make implementation retrospective, to the date of Second Reading—in other words to today, before the Bill had even been in Committee.
	I have only a few brief remarks left to make, about one or two other issues that require our attention. Clause 2 sets out the Electoral Commission's investigatory powers. Of course I agree that the commission needs investigatory powers to perform its statutory duties, but the proposals look extremely heavy handed—hon. Members in all parts of the House have made that point in different ways this evening. We cannot possibly implement the proposals in the Bill as drafted, so we must look at them again.
	Clause 8 requires political parties to make a written declaration about the original source of any funds over £200. We have had a discussion about that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham has already explained that for practical reasons the Electoral Commission does not support that measure in its current form, and neither do I. I am fully in favour of transparency, but the compliance burden would be huge if the declaration requirement and the verification process were to become meaningful.
	That is where the compliance impact assessment is so off beam. It says on page 4 that
	"it would take a political party approximately 5 minutes per donation...to process donations...over £200".
	Five minutes to verify a donation is no more than a brief phone call or even the time that it would take to find out what number to ring. However, the reputational risk to a political party would be huge if that were not done more thoroughly. That is because—this point has not been explained thoroughly enough this evening—the Bill fundamentally changes the relationship between the Electoral Commission and political parties, by providing civil sanctions and by the increase in investigatory powers.
	The real compliance burden on political parties from that £200 trigger would therefore be large. The provisions are not acceptable in their current form. There are a number of solutions, one of which may be to raise the £200 limit. However, we cannot leave any political party as exposed as the Bill currently recommends. I completely agree with the point made earlier that nor can we allow vehicles to be created especially for the purpose of concealment. However, clause 8 is not designed to prevent that.
	With respect to the issue of consensus, let me add in passing that neither the Electoral Commission's proposed investigatory powers nor the verification changes were subject to Green Paper consultation. There has been no serious consultation on those issues, still less the establishment of a consensus.
	This is a tiny Bill that is designed to deal with major problems, but it does not address them. Even the relatively small measures in the Bill can be described as partisan and ill conceived. I am confident that it will not survive scrutiny in the other place. I hope very much that the Government will have the good sense to withdraw the most controversial measures and to amend the rough edges of a number of the others before they allow it to get there.

Tony Wright: I have learned, over the years, to be extremely suspicious of the word "consensus". Whenever it is used by party politicians in this country, it usually means that they are about to disagree about something. We learn that it is nice to say that we believe in consensus, but I have never seen it endure when serious matters arise. We had an outburst of it recently over the financial crisis. It lasted for about 48 hours. Some countries do consensus; the Nordic countries do consensus, including on party funding. We do not do consensus, however.
	We know that we ought to do consensus, which is why we talk about it so often, but we also know that it will break down at the first touch of party advantage. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has just said, when the Conservatives thought that there might be some party advantage in triggering the trade union issue, they collapsed the Hayden Phillips talks. That was a great pity. We ought to pay tribute to Sir Hayden Phillips, who, with the Constitutional Affairs Committee, produced an excellent set of proposals that provided the basis for some progress on the issue.
	We do consensus only in the most exceptional circumstances. That was the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We had a newly elected Government with a huge majority. The Opposition were disoriented, unbalanced and on the back foot. They were rather ashamed of themselves, and knew that they had to come on side. In those circumstances, it was relatively easy to get consensus around the 2000 legislation.
	In normal times, we think that consensus is a good idea, but we just do not do it. It is rather like an alcoholic who keeps saying that he is attached to the virtues of sobriety. Yes, he knows what he has to say, but somehow he can never quite do it.
	We need to take a step back before we take the step forwards. We need to take a step back and remind ourselves of where we have come from. I remember coming into the House in the early 1990s. There were party funding scandals, and they were all about where the Tories were getting their money from. Private organisations had to go to Companies House to try to find out where those great Tory funders came from. Then they did the matching up of the funders and the people getting peerages, and said, "There you are, this shows that these big funders get their pay-off in the House of Lords." But it was a completely covert system.
	When the new Committee on Standards in Public Life was established, I remember saying, along with other people in the House at that time, that we should ask it to look into party funding, so that it could help us to sort out some of these issues. The Conservative Government of the day refused to give the issue of party funding to the committee. That shows where we have come from, and where we have now got to.
	Looking back at those days, it is worth remembering that party funding was entirely unregulated at that time. Parties were seen essentially as voluntary organisations that could do as they liked with their money. They could do as they liked in regard to how they got it and how they spent it. It was only when that seemed to be causing difficulties and embarrassment of the kind that I have just described that the Committee on Standards in Public Life produced the comprehensive report on party funding that led to the 2000 Act. The watchword of that Act—which we thought, at the time, would be the piece of legislation that would deal with this issue once and for all—was "transparency". The problem was identified as one of secrecy, because we did not know where donations came from. We thought that, if we had proper transparency and people could see where they came from, that would solve the problem. The parties would have to be accountable for what happened after that.
	As it turned out, however, that did not solve the problem. There were a number of reasons for that. One was that, when people saw what was happening, they did not like it. Also, the pattern of party funding was changing. Let us look back at what seemed offensive at the time. We had a situation in which the Labour party was, on the whole, funded by the trade unions, and the Conservative party was funded by business donations. That looks like an age of lost innocence compared with what we have now, because it was all open and regulated—albeit on its own terms, and if one could find out the information.
	Now, of course, it is clear that those sources of donations fell away and we saw the rise of the big individual donor. We reached a position in which parties were increasingly funded by those rich individuals and party effort had to be devoted to going out and finding them. That, of course, raised questions in turn about what those rich individuals were going to get for their money. What would they receive in the way of changes in party or Government policy? What would they get in the way of honours, peerages and rewards? We moved from a position in which it was thought to be enough simply to have transparency to one in which it was thought necessary to address the new funding environment.
	As we deal with present circumstances, we should remember at least some of the logic of those former days. The logic was, I believe, this. Let us be sure, it ran, that we identify the problems before we invent the solutions. That may sound trivial, but I hope not. It is possible to get so intricately involved in the nuances of funding regimes that we lose sight of why we are looking into them in the first place. I presume that we are doing it to stop money ruling in politics, to stop politics from being driven by financial considerations and to stop certain people from being able to buy influence through privileged access and privileged benefits.

Julian Lewis: I am quite happy to have had to wait rather a long time to make what is rather a short speech, because otherwise I might have missed the contributions of some of the late entrants, such as that of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) who has just put on a bravura 24-minute performance. That was particularly striking given that I do not think he had intended to make a speech at all until he was spoken to by his Whip. I realise how much I yet have to learn about the workings of this place, but I congratulate him on that effort.
	There have been a considerable number of noises about consensus, followed up by a considerable number of highly partisan speeches. In contrast, throughout the debate I have been making a considerable number of highly partisan heckles and interventions, but I shall now make what I hope will be a highly consensual speech. It is about nothing that anyone else has discussed, because it is not about something that is in the Bill but about something that I hope might be put into it. It follows on from discussions that I have had with various Ministers, shadow Ministers and the Electoral Commission, and from a campaign earlier this year.
	As we are all aware, on 16 May three judges, in their wisdom, ruled that the private home addresses of hon. Members should be published in response to freedom of information requests. That led to a great deal of heart-searching, anguish and concern on the part of Members, 256 of whom signed an early-day motion stating that their home addresses should be kept secret and not revealed in response to such requests. They included 98 Members from my party, 31 Liberal Democrat Members—about half of each of those parliamentary parties—and 111 Labour Members. That number would have been much higher but for the fact that many Government Ministers and appointees were not able to sign an early-day motion.
	One of the strongest supporters of the move to change the rules and ensure that such addresses were not revealed was the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), who spoke earlier in this debate. Other supporters were the Leader of the House and her then deputy. A very strong supporter was a Minister who is now in the Ministry of Justice, who gave a seriously worrying account of something that had happened when the revealing of an address had led to an encounter on that Minister's doorstep. It could easily have had a very nasty result.
	The outcome of all that was that on 17 July, through a statutory instrument, the rules were changed. Hon. Members will no longer be put at risk in that way as a result of the decision by three judges, each of whom, most revealingly, declined to give me his home address. However, a point directly relevant to the Bill is the reason why the information tribunal in February, and the three judges in May, said that they thought it appropriate for hon. Members' home addresses to be revealed. They said, although not quite in these words, that the cat was already out of the bag because candidates had to reveal their home addresses in certain documents at election time. We all know what those documents are, but I do not propose to spell it out. I do not want to make it any easier for people who wish to cause trouble to go into the matter, because I hope that we will get the law changed.
	I contacted the Electoral Commission and had a conversation on 22 July with Mr. Peter Wardle, the chief executive. I wrote to him on 30 July and pointed out that, as I have said, the primary reason for the decision was that the cat was already out of the bag. My argument was, and is, that the cat had been let only partly out of the bag. Just because something is revealed locally from time to time, that is no reason to have to reveal it en masse, all the time, on the internet. That would have been the effect of the freedom of information ruling.
	I put it to the Electoral Commission that there were four alternatives ways to close the loophole. The first was that the requirement at election time
	"should be altered from disclosure of a home address"
	on various papers
	"to disclosure of any valid address via which the candidate can receive communications."
	The second was that
	"the candidate need not disclose any address at all."
	The third was that
	"only the first three letters/digits of the postcode of the candidate's genuine home address should be disclosed",
	and the fourth was that
	"a genuine home address should be disclosed to the Electoral Returning Officer only, who would have to be satisfied by documentary or other means that it was valid but who would not disclose it to third parties."
	Mr. Wardle helpfully replied on 4 August, stating:
	"In your letter of 30 July, you set out four possibilities. For the reasons I expand on below, I think the Commission would be likely to prefer your option (3)—that only the first 3 digits of the postcode of the candidate's genuine home address should be disclosed. In brief, the reason for my view is that the Commission is likely to take the view that electors and candidates should have the opportunity to establish for themselves what connection a candidate has with the area they are seeking to represent."
	He pointed out that the requirement for a home address to be disclosed went back to the Ballot Act 1872 and had been carried forward, most recently in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Mr. Wardle said that his
	"understanding is that the arguments for maintaining these arrangements"
	related to people seeing that
	"where there are rules on residency (e.g. in relation to eligibility to stand at a local election), they had been followed; or, where there are no residency rules, to ensure that candidates and electors can identify which candidates are local to the area."
	He pointed out that in different Parliaments and in different elections, such as European elections, there are not the same requirements for such details to be disclosed.
	I know that time is against me, so I shall conclude by saying merely that I believe that it was a good thing that the Electoral Commission stated the following to me:
	"In our report, we did not recommend the complete removal of candidates' addresses from ballot papers—but we did suggest that addresses on ballot papers"—
	one of the examples that we all know about—
	"could be abridged. Giving the first three digits of a postcode would, for example, be one way of achieving that."
	The House has made its position overwhelmingly clear on this issue. The House has spoken: it does not wish hon. Members' home addresses to be revealed. The only reason this came about in the first place was through people pointing out that the home addresses of candidates are revealed at election time, albeit in a restricted way locally. The Bill gives us the opportunity to close that loophole, which nearly led to a very dangerous result. I do not expect an answer from the Minister tonight, but I hope that he will consider tabling an amendment in Committee. I am sure that such an amendment would meet with a great deal of genuine, consensual support. My Front-Bench colleagues informed me today that they would be happy to table such an amendment, but I hope that that will not be necessary.

Philip Dunne: Like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), I would like to focus on an omission from the Bill, although perhaps not with the forensic detail with which he made his particular point. I wish to address a disgraceful aspect of elections, because the Bill fails to take any steps to address the scandal of our disfranchised citizens living abroad. A year or two ago, considerable emphasis was placed on the difficulties our service personnel faced in getting registered because of their role and the frequency of their postings. Our annual registration makes it difficult to track them down and for them to participate.
	A similar thing applies to non-resident British people—those who are living abroad. It is difficult to tell how large the resident population is in this country—hon. Members know all too well that we do not have a proper, accurate count of the population—so it is even more difficult to work out how many ex-patriot Britons are outside these shores. The Department's estimates of ex-patriots living abroad range from more than 13 million to—possibly—more reliable estimates of somewhere between 5 million and 6 million.

Philip Dunne: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. We do not spend large amounts of money on trying to identify expatriate voters. Indeed, I intend to go on to make a plea for our overseas missions to be placed under a duty to seek out expatriate voters. Many other countries have much higher participation rates than we do and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that participation rates are low. At the last election, some 18,000 expatriate voters actually exercised their vote. The last figure available from the Electoral Commission for December last year suggests that only 15,000 expatriate Britons are currently registered to vote, although one would expect that figure to rise in anticipation of a general election.
	It is also true that the participation of those registered is low, but that is not a good thing and the Bill fails to try to take any steps to increase voter participation. To suggest that all those who live abroad have given up on this country is a gross misrepresentation of why people choose to live and work abroad. The expectation of the Electoral Commission is that the majority of expatriates are of working age and are living abroad for a spell. We have free movement within the EU now and many people are working in other countries around the world. It would be wrong for those people to lose their vote because of barriers that we place in the electoral system.
	Many other Governments allow their diplomatic missions to be used to facilitate registration and in the election process itself. I would like the Bill to be amended in Committee to place a duty on our missions overseas, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its consulates, to require them to seek out British expatriates and encourage them to register to vote. The missions should also be used as locations for posting ballots so that people do not have to return their ballot papers to the UK through the vagaries of international postal networks which, given tight election timetables, can mean that people do not bother to vote because they know that by the time they get their ballot papers they will not have time to return them to be counted. I urge the Minister to comment when he winds up on why the Bill contains no mention of expatriate voters and whether he will consider such amendments in Committee.
	On the investigatory powers in the Bill, has the Minister considered what obligations he is placing on the Electoral Commission to pursue potential donations from eligible voters that may breach the new donation guidelines? If the new investigatory powers outlined in clause 2 apply to eligible, non-resident voters, how will they be exercised when those voters—potentially 2.5 million of them—live in many different countries? Is there any territoriality to those investigatory powers? If not, is that not a glaring omission? If so, how will they work in practice? Those issues are not covered in the clause or proposed new schedule 19A and I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a clue about his thinking on that point.

Michael Wills: As the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, this has been an interesting debate. There have been many distinguished contributions, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) might have predicted, not everybody has agreed on everything in the Bill. However, it is notable that much of the discussion has been about not what is in the Bill, but what is not in it.  [Interruption.] Of course hon. Members will want to pursue the policies that they think are particularly appropriate to their needs. The hon. Member for Huntingdon suggests that, because the Bill focuses on transparency, the effectiveness of regulation and trying to bring in blocks on spending, the Government are insouciant about electoral fraud. He knows that that is nonsense, because every time he raises the issue, he is told of the measures that we are taking and have brought in—postal vote personal identifiers, witness signatures and so on—and every time he just ignores that and repeats the same old refrain.
	Of course we take electoral fraud seriously. We are tackling it, and will continue to do so. We are very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to tackle it more effectively. It is in the interests of everyone in the House to do so, but the Bill is not about that. The Bill is about matters on which I believe everyone in the House can agree. It is founded on three fundamental principles. First, our democracy depends on the public having trust in political parties. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made an eloquent case for that.
	Secondly, there must be greater transparency in the funding of political parties, more effective powers for those scrutinising the conduct of elections, and an end to the arms race in party political spending. There has been much discussion today about whether there is such an arms race. I draw attention to the findings of the Hayden Phillips review. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) mentioned the papers. He will be aware that they are in the possession of Sir Hayden Phillips, who is deciding whether to release them. The hon. Gentleman knows, as do we, that the papers found that there was a significant increase in spending not only in general election compared with general election, but crucially within each electoral cycle. That is because spending at a local level is off the balance sheet. That is why we need more and better controls on candidate spending.
	The third principle on which I hope the entire House can agree is that on an issue of such constitutional importance, it is vital that we move forward, as far as possible—notwithstanding the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase—on the basis of consensus. Of course elections will always be vigorously disputed, but the foundations of the electoral system itself should not be the subject of dispute in so far as we can avoid that. Hon. Members have rightly been concerned with points of detail, which I shall deal with.
	There has been much talk about the transparency of the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party. Labour Members placed great emphasis on the historic links. Many of the Opposition's obsessions were aired. The House should know that recently the affiliated trade unions wrote to the Labour party general secretary to confirm that they will voluntarily provide more information to members about the collection and use of political funds and the individual member's right to opt out, and that the affiliates will introduce a common text for incorporation into membership materials, including application forms. In addition, the affiliates agreed that full affiliation of the levy-paying membership is the most transparent form of political membership, and moves will be made to that end. I hope that that indicates how we will move forward to introduce greater transparency into the process. I hope that the Opposition will reflect on that and think about how they can match those measures.
	There has been a great deal of discussion about the triggering mechanism. We had detailed and forensic discussion of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) called it Aquinian. I am not sure that any of us is much wiser about the degree of consensus that previously existed, but nobody could ever have wanted or endorsed a situation in which candidates were totally unregulated except in the last four weeks of the election. That is what we are trying to address.
	The various points made in the debate will be taken on board by us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) made a good point about the trigger. He stated that opposition to the Bill was based more on practicalities than on principle. I was interested to note that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) seemed to agree with that. We are willing to address the details of the proposal in Committee. We want to approach the Bill openly and we will address each point constructively.
	Concern was expressed that the provisions might discourage political volunteers. The hon. Member for Cambridge, my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase, for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) all expressed concern about how the Bill may affect treasurers in local parties. Although we want the system to achieve greater transparency, that must be balanced against the need for it to be manageable if it is to operate for both donors and political parties. We want to achieve that balance, so we are listening to the Electoral Commission and to the parties. We have certainly also listened to all the contributions made in this debate. As I said, we want to move forward on the basis of consensus. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor has made clear, we want representations on the issue and we will approach them all constructively.
	Before I comment in detail on the Electoral Commission, I want to thank the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) for acting as such an eloquent conduit for its views. We are all grateful to him. There has been a lot of concern about the role of the Electoral Commission. Everybody realises that it needs to be improved and most of the contributions to the debate have given a general welcome to the measures that we have taken to enhance competence and experience at the commission.
	However, a great deal of concern has been expressed about some of the new powers. My hon. Friends the Members for Slough, for Cannock Chase and for Manchester, Central and the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Huntingdon all expressed worries about the extent of the powers.
	There has been some misunderstanding about how the powers will operate. First, we have set pretty high hurdles for their operation; the test is higher than that for existing powers. The powers will be warrant-based, so the commission will have to apply to use them. Under the new powers, unlike under the existing ones, reasonable force to gain entry can be authorised by a justice of the peace when the warrant is issued. However, the commission would have to demonstrate to a justice of the peace that it had a reasonable belief that an offence had been committed.
	Technically, there is no new statutory entry power. A search can take place only when a warrant is granted and whether one is granted and what it allows depends on the decision of the justice of the peace acting as an independent check on the commission's power of entry. That is actually more restrictive than what can be done under the current power to enter. We recognise that people have raised significant concerns. We have listened to them today and when they have been expressed previously. We have heard the force of opinion in the House on the issue and will consider what can be done to address it. We expect to return to those concerns in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned concerns about stop notices, but I should say to him that those have a high hurdle before they can be applied. The commission has reasonably to believe that the activity of the person in question is
	"seriously damaging public confidence in the effectiveness of the controls in this Act".
	A lot of people have expressed a wide range of concerns, and I want to address three or four in respect of specific points. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made a detailed point about single-seat divisions in his constituency, and I shall write to him about that.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) expressed concern about when we were going to bring in section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and clearly set out some of the issues raised in relating that provision to the Bill. He will be aware that the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor has written to him explaining that we are considering how the provisions will work together. My right hon. Friend has offered a meeting, and the best way forward is for that meeting to take place very soon to see whether we can reach agreement on that serious issue. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand only too well, the issue is not simple. However, we want to resolve it, so we will come back to him very soon—I do mean very soon—with a time for a meeting on how we can move forward.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) raised an issue that concerns many Members, and I am grateful to him for the spirit in which he did so. He will know from our previous discussions that I am keen to continue a dialogue on that, but he will also know that in our view it is not necessarily as simple as he suggests. For example, there are implications for electoral administrators. The current provisions exist for a reason, and there continues to be a body of opinion in favour of them. They are not merely a historical anachronism, as he elegantly suggested. I can assure him that we will consider the matter, take it forward, and continue what I hope that he agrees has been a constructive dialogue.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) asked about non-resident voters. This is the first time that we can remember that issue being raised with us. The hon. Member for Huntingdon said that he will pursue it in Committee. We are happy to do that if necessary, but the solutions may not need to be legislative.
	The issues at stake in this debate are extremely important. I hope that hon. Members will agree that whatever may not be in the Bill, what is in it is very important for the health of our democracy. If we can agree on the principles of a more transparent and more effectively regulated system with greater controls on spending, we will have a platform on which we can move forward to discuss the details in Committee.
	Some hon. Members have urged us to go further, and we want to do so. This Bill is not the end of the story, and we recognise that more needs to be done. However, I say to all those who have criticised us that, as the Justice Secretary said, we can move forward enduringly and sustainably only on the basis of consensus. These issues should never again become part of a game of political football. Sadly, we do not yet have that consensus on all the measures that we wish to put in place, but we will continue to explore ways in which we can achieve it.
	In the meantime, the Bill represents significant progress. It strengthens the Electoral Commission, enhancing its competence and powers, as all independent reviews have recommended. It introduces blocks on the arms race in election spending, and we will keep going to put those blocks in place.
	The Bill introduces greater transparency to political donations. At various points in the past—

That the draft Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.— [Claire Ward.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Denis Murphy: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He rightly points out that a number of communities in Northumberland were affected by severe flooding, one of which was the village of Hepscot, just outside Morpeth. It was not affected to the same extent as Morpeth, but one of the main reasons why it flooded was that the drains were overwhelmed. Does he agree that although simple maintenance—the cleaning of drains, and their upgrading, where necessary—would perhaps not have prevented the worst damage, it would have alleviated many of the problems that were faced?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, to which I shall return in a moment. Drain and culvert maintenance is very important.
	I was discussing what the Environment Agency must do in a number of areas. In the Rothbury and Coquetdale areas, I want it to engage with local people to discuss how to reduce the flood risk. Work being done on the Coplish burn will not, by itself, be enough and, because of access difficulties, even that is not certain to be completed. There needs to be a public meeting at which the agency must explain and discuss the options that could be pursued, by extending the floodplain in upstream areas, for example. Local councillor, Stephen Bridgett, and I feel that such a discussion with local people is urgently needed.
	The Environment Agency needs to be similarly open with the people of the Ingram valley. I share their anger that action that could have reduced the damage and the risk has previously been resisted by the agency on the grounds that the river would not pose the very dangers that we faced in September. The agency sent me a letter in October 2005, when I took up a demand for some work to be done, in which it stated:
	"We refused consent for the works...on the grounds that the works would cause too much environmental damage. We have monitored the situation over the last 2 years and see no indication of rapid erosion, in fact the section of river appears to be naturally stabilising."
	That very section of river went from being 50 m from property to just a few feet away during the floods, so, in refusing consent for works, the agency had wrongly anticipated the situation. The agency has to take account of all sorts of issues, which results in local residents feeling that the interests of fish are taking priority over the homes and livelihoods of those who live and work in the valley.
	Not far away, in Powburn, where there has been serious flooding, there is a belief that the massive landslip, which has closed the A697, prevented the flooding of the village from being even worse. When the road has been rebuilt—that cannot happen soon enough for the people in Glanton, because all the diverted traffic goes through it—it will need to incorporate some method of retaining floodwater in the dene, located between the road and the railway track, so that water does not overwhelm the village. The situation is curious, because people in the village, who are cut off from the south by a landslide, say, "Thank goodness for the landslide—it could have been even worse but for that." We need carefully to examine alternative measures once the road is reinstated.
	In the Till valley, older flood defences have been pierced to protect homes, which seemed to work, but agriculture and local businesses, such as the Fenton centre, paid a high price. Tourist businesses such as the Heatherslaw railway and the café were hit hard. The flooding of one group of recently built properties at Canno Mill, Kirknewton, was no surprise. The Environment Agency had objected to planning permission in 2004 because the development was on a floodplain. That is a clear warning for the future. The future flood strategy for the Till and its tributaries needs wide public discussion.
	One vital but neglected part of flood defences in many areas—and here I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Wansbeck—is the clearing of burns and culverts of obstructions that cause floodwater to build up quickly. That was highly relevant in Belford and Netherton, and the hon. Gentleman points out that it was also relevant in Hepscot. It is a local council responsibility, not the Environment Agency's, and its importance should be more fully recognised. It is an especially challenging task in large rural authorities and it needs to be recognised in the funding formula. We have long-standing arguments about the funding formula as it affects Northumberland and the particular rural challenges that the county faces.
	I turn now to the help that communities need. There has been some good, practical help from a wide range of authorities and agencies, both to householders and, in some cases, to business. DEFRA and the Environment Agency were proving very difficult over the disposal of the large number of animal carcases, refusing permission for local burial. However, One NorthEast stepped in to fund an emergency fallen stock disposal scheme, and farmers were grateful for that, but they still face huge drying costs and uninsurable crop losses.
	The Government have the Bellwin system in place to fund local authorities up to 85 per cent. of non-insurance covered costs. For small authorities such as Castle Morpeth and Alnwick, there is a particularly strong case for the 100 per cent. help that some authorities received last year, and Northumberland, where its new administration has inherited a very difficult financial situation, faces a severe challenge that merits similar help.
	Warkworth harbour at Amble is a small tourist port, serving the fishing industry and the leisure boating community. The harbour is very popular with anglers, visitors and local people who like to walk on the harbour wall. The floods had a destructive impact on the harbour. The river bed was scoured out by the volume of water and that also led to the washing away of the infill material behind the harbour wall. There is one section where the piles for the wall do not reach down to the rock, and in that section the wall has slipped down, tearing holes in the popular walkway along the top.
	The situation has been exacerbated by the discovery that the damage is not covered by the insurance for the harbour. Costs of several thousands of pounds have already been incurred on emergency stabilisation works, and engineers are deciding what needs to be done as the next step. There are some funds for the works in the dredging reserves, but there will be a need for grant funding from DEFRA and other bodies that usually help to finance dredging operations. It is not clear how that money will be accessed or whether it can be obtained. Harbour income is very small. In the old days, it was a busy coal port, but that has long since ceased. The infrastructure of the harbour remains vital for the fishing community, the leisure boating businesses and the flood protection of the town of Amble.
	I ask the Minister to give urgent consideration to that problem and the others that I have raised. She may be able to give me some answers tonight, as I gave her prior notice of the points that I intended to make. However, other issues—such as the Amble harbour situation—will require discussion with other parts of the Department. I look forward to hearing from her once she has had those discussions. I stress again the devastating impact of the floods in Northumberland and how important it is that we have help in putting the county back on its feet.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing the debate. Does the Minister share my concerns that although we are all trying to encourage the Environment Agency to push up registration for flood warnings, when such an incident happens it puts people off signing up to such a registration? If the Government could do something in that regard, it would be vital.

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge that flood warnings save lives. I understand that more than 70,000 more people have registered with the Environment Agency flood warning system. I do not entirely accept that such an incident puts people off registering. The agency is improving its advice to the public. It is running flood awareness campaigns and is working with the Met Office to improve the quality of flood warnings.
	Flood warnings were issued in Morpeth. Let me say a little more about the events in Northumberland. Heavy rainfall early warnings were issued for the north-east of England and flash flood warnings were sent out across many further parts of the country on the Friday. Through the early warning system and the new and improved working arrangement between the Environment Agency and Met Office, warnings were issued to alert local authorities and the emergency services, and preparations were made to prepare vulnerable people and vulnerable areas.
	The rainfall that occurred in the north-east was very heavy. Advice from the Environment Agency is that the flooding that occurred was estimated as a one in 60- year event. At the time, and since, a lot of attention was rightly focused on Morpeth, where the first flood watch alert was issued at 3.30 on the Saturday morning, with warnings escalating throughout the day. The first area to flood in Morpeth was the undefended High Stanners area at about 11 o'clock on the Saturday morning. River levels continued to rise and further severe warnings were issued for other parts of the town, with flooding from the river starting between 3 o'clock in the afternoon and 4.45 at various locations. There was also flooding from the River Wansbeck, which received 94 mm of rainfall between the Friday and Saturday. A number of areas of the town were affected by surface water, which affected many properties and contributed to flood defences being overtopped.
	In Morpeth, approximately 1,000 homes and businesses were affected by the flooding and about 250 families were looked after in rescue centres and temporary accommodation. Rothbury, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, was completely cut off, as he described. In Ponteland, the River Pont burst its banks. Critical infrastructure was affected in the area, and four electricity substations were switched off. The ambulance station was flooded and all roads into Morpeth were impassable. The events were very serious indeed and when one is not affected by such events one can have nothing but sympathy for the families whose homes and businesses are affected.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me to write to him about the damage to the harbour. I was not sure precisely what the damage was until I had heard his comments, but I am happy to respond in writing. In a moment, I shall say a little about the animal carcases to which he referred.
	Flooding of homes and businesses is always devastating, but such events will take place from time to time, despite the substantial increase in flood defence spending that the Government are putting into effect. We must be ready to react at national, regional and local levels. The House may not be aware of the following schemes providing effective flood defence in other communities in the recent September floods. Such works enabled damage to be averted at 21,000 homes on the River Taff, thousands of homes on the River Wye in Hereford and the River Rhonda at Ferndale, 2,100 homes on the River Birket in the Wirral, and hundreds of homes in Warrington, Manchester, Bangor-on-Dee, Yorkshire and on the River Tees at Yarm, as well as 600 homes in York.

Jane Kennedy: Certainly the Environment Agency will examine incidents of flooding wherever they occur, and will obviously want to learn lessons and determine strategies to see what can be done to avoid flooding in future. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a range of areas that might be, or were, flooded. Clearly, the Environment Agency will have to look at the experience of the north-east, and Northumberland in particular, as a result of September's rains.
	Although substantial flooding did occur in parts of the north-east in September, it is important to remember the many flood defence systems that were not breached, despite the very heavy rain. I referred to a number of them earlier. Many properties were saved from damage in Bishop Auckland and West Auckland—places that I know well from my childhood—where completion of a dam at Spring Gardens held back flood water above the town at a height of 8.5 m; that seems an incredible height. In Hexham, at Cockshaw burn and Halgut burn, the combination of a new engineered channel and flood diversion pipe operated to take flood water away from the centre of the town.
	The Environment Agency is responsible for maintaining and repairing flood defences, including the installation of temporary defences where needed. During the past year it has inspected 180,000 assets and carried out work that now means that 95 per cent. are serviceable and will perform as designed during a flood event. The Environment Agency spent £377 million building and maintaining flood defences in England, as well as raising public awareness through greatly improved flood mapping and warning systems.
	More generally, our work to improve preparedness against flooding is ongoing and although we must recognise that we can never eliminate the risk of flooding, we are determined to improve our ability to reduce the impact of flooding. The Government are increasing investment and we will see a record £2.15 billion invested over the next three-year period. As I said, we will never be able to eradicate the threat, but I am encouraged that the events of September demonstrate the preparedness and professionalism of those charged with responding at every level. I am not complacent, but I believe that we are better able to respond to the threat.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned  accordingly  at Eleven o'clock.